mkt_result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the operation is read-only, and unobtainable metrics are reported as "未测" rather than defaulted to 0 — an important semantic that prevents misreading zeros as measured values. However, it says nothing about return structure, permissions, or scope, so the disclosure is valuable but thin for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the read-only qualifier and then the three-layer semantics, with the null-vs-zero rule as the closing point. Nothing is redundant, though the density of Chinese noun-stacking makes the first clause slightly harder to parse than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what comes back — yet it only says three layers are computed and compared to criteria, without describing the response shape or per-layer fields. Combined with the undocumented `criteria` parameter, an agent cannot confidently predict the result structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single `criteria` parameter is an array of objects with no field documentation anywhere. The phrase "对照判据" implies criteria is the yardstick used for comparison, but the description never explains its shape, required fields, or effect on output, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states this is a read-only results tool that computes three separate layers (platform actions / task results / business results) and compares them against criteria — a real structure, but "结果" alone is generic and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like mkt_scorecard, mkt_metric_measure, or mkt_progress. An agent can grasp the shape of the tool but not precisely what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage signal is "只读" (read-only), which implies safe inspection but not when this should be chosen over mkt_scorecard, mkt_metric_measure, or mkt_progress. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving the agent to guess among ~30 marketing siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.